Would it really matter if the next Trek series were on linear TV?

[Temis the Vorta]

With Netflix's House of Cards being released today there are some articles talking about the new business model and how it affects the creative side of storytelling. How would this apply to Star Trek if it were not on a linear TV channel?

There are three reasons for Netflix to make original content: attract new subscribers, stop existing subscribers from leaving and brand-building in the entertainment industry to attract future content partners.

Star Trek would be great for all three, but particularly the first, and this article implies its the most important factor in judging the success of the HoC launch.

Imagine you see an ad like this: watch the premiere of a new Star Trek series, right now online, no ads, for free. Who'd turn that down? And of course some of them would decide to keep the subscription when the free trial ends.

[AviTrek]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

There are three reasons for Netflix to make original content: attract new subscribers, stop existing subscribers from leaving and brand-building in the entertainment industry to attract future content partners.

Star Trek would be great for all three, but particularly the first, and this article implies its the most important factor in judging the success of the HoC launch.

Imagine you see an ad like this: watch the premiere of a new Star Trek series, right now online, no ads, for free. Who'd turn that down? And of course some of them would decide to keep the subscription when the free trial ends.

Yep, and Netflix is doing exactly that with House of Cards. The first episode is free for everyone. Then if you like it, you can subscribe to see the rest of the series. Netflix of course hopes you keep the subscription after you finish the show.

[Relayer1]

I wouldn't subscribe. I'd just wait for a Bluray release.

If it didn't get a release I'd see if someone could record it for me...

[Temis the Vorta]

There's no indication Netflix plans to release its original series in any physical-media format. Streaming is it. From their perspective, any other format would be going backwards.

As a Netflix subscriber, I now own House of Cards without ever needing to lay hands on it. It'll be in my queue forever, since I can't envision any reason why it would be in Netflix's interest to remove it.

Maybe in regions where they don't have service set up, they will find a local partner to release their series, until they do establish business. But if you want Netflix content and they exist in your area, you have to subscribe. Which is why a killer-ap brand like Star Trek is ideal for them. For a lot of people, that's a must-see, and there aren't many brands like that.

[bullethead]

Linear and online have their advantages and disadvantages. Linear is a lot better for discovery (people can stumble upon your show while channel surfing), but it sucks for the more tech savvy people who probably don't have cable, because they'll pirate/watch streams of it instead of getting cable (unless it's uploaded on Hulu). Plus there are all sorts of creative pressures imposed by the networks, which can harm the show.

Online offers a lot more freedom creatively and people can watch whenever/wherever as long as they have an internet connection, but it sucks at just about everything else. There's less chance of people randomly discovering it unless you pull a Hulu and air commercials during other shows, and even then tons of people won't know your show exists; if it's on a subscription only service, people will find a way to pirate it or wait for the physical release (which is inevitable for Trek), rather than pay the subscription; then there's the problems of monetizing the show outside of iTunes/physical releases and Hulu style streaming.

[Temis the Vorta]

Just look at how Netflix advertised House of Cards - they targetted sites with audiences they wanted and seemed likely to check it out (Deadline.com for entertainment industry workers for example) and offered one free episode to non subscribers.

So if you're in a group that Netflix thinks would subscribe to see X show, odds are good you will hear about it. They'd only make this push for their original shows. If Star Trek were one of them, it would be child's play for them to target ads to the Trekkie audience. In fact, the ease of promotion would be a key reason for doing it.

Everything gets pirated, so that's not an argument against doing something, might as well never make another TV show or movie if piracy is going to stop you. And I wouldn't make any assumptions about streaming series getting physical media releases. A big name like Star Trek may be an exception for now, anyway...

[AviTrek]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

Just look at how Netflix advertised House of Cards - they targetted sites with audiences they wanted and seemed likely to check it out (Deadline.com for entertainment industry workers for example) and offered one free episode to non subscribers.

So if you're in a group that Netflix thinks would subscribe to see X show, odds are good you will hear about it. They'd only make this push for their original shows. If Star Trek were one of them, it would be child's play for them to target ads to the Trekkie audience. In fact, the ease of promotion would be a key reason for doing it.

Everything gets pirated, so that's not an argument against doing something, might as well never make another TV show or movie if piracy is going to stop you. And I wouldn't make any assumptions about streaming series getting physical media releases. A big name like Star Trek may be an exception for now, anyway...

As further proof that the model works, Netflix got me to sign up just to watch House of Cards. Technically I'm only using my free month trial to watch and I will probably cancel after it's done, but I will subscribe again for the second season and pay $8 for it. Of course, if Netflix can offer enough good shows year round, then they can try to convince me to subscribe year round.

[Temis the Vorta]

Interesting...is Netflix doing anything to hang onto you as a subscriber, such as recommending other series that a HoC viewer might like? (Mad Men, Breaking Bad...)

[AviTrek]

The blu ray interface doesn't promote anything other than what I have in my queue. I hadn't been on the website since I added hoc to my queue until i checked now. Of their top 10 for me I've seen 8. Which I guess means the recommendation engine knows my tastes, but it also means I haven't discovered anything new. The two other shows they listed I had heard of but I'm not interested in.

I did also watch an episode of ds9, and I may watch some more before my month is over, but I'm not going to pay $8/month to watch star trek.

[AviTrek]

Now launching a new season of Jericho would get me to stick around.

www.nerdacy.com/2013/01/31/exclusive-stephen-chbosky-talks-jericho-at-sbiff-2013/

Or Star Trek for that matter...

[Temis the Vorta]

I watch streaming via Roku and if that was my only way of finding out about new Netflix series, I would never have heard of it. I don't understand why they are so shy about using their own interface to promote their original content. They have total control over it. Maybe not so vital for people like me who would subscribe regardless of original content, but they should be busting ass to hold onto people who are sampling new content, by making sure they are aware of, and watch, similar series.

[jefferiestubes8]

Since CBS still has not offered new TV shows to Hulu or Hulu Plus but instead only old catalog series it wont be soon but it still could happen that they try something like this:

The BBC will stream some shows before they air on linear TV.
Could this work for a Trek series and lead the way for future seasons of that series based on the number of streams they are doing and paid iTunes rentals?
BBC to stream shows on iPlayer ahead of scheduled broadcasts
Since CBS has not put new programming on Hulu or Netflix perhaps they will build their own app like BBC's iPlayer?
Viacom owns Nickelodeon and they are readying an app.

The new app would be part of a broader strategy to expand programming on non-traditional venues.

is that a Viacom overall strategy including other channels?
The CW and MTV have their new stuff on Hulu Plus.

For example, it’s testing ad sales strategies for VOD showings, and is working with Nielsen and others to find ways to measure those who stream shows.

Let's discuss this.
YouTube is attempting to do premium channels.
Here is how:

YouTube‘s attempt to curate premium channels has been mostly limited to its ever-expanding line of Original Channels, but a new endeavor shows off its willingness to help create channels one at a time. YouTube and entertainment firm Greenlight Media & Marketing have teamed up to create Country Now, a new YouTube channel dedicated to America’s twangiest musical genre.

http://www.tubefilter.com/2013/02/08...y-now-channel/
Could this be the way CBS takes with their Trek TV property in a few years or with their own app for streaming video to lock it down even more?

Maybe a new Star Trek series could air on Spike TV at an odd time but really be a flagship for a yet unannounced Viacom CBS app. Or at the same time they rebrand Spike TV to a newer science/fantasy cable channel aimed at men with some shows also like SyFy's programming? Maybe on a Thursday night at 9:00PM. The ratings on this Spike TV channel would be pretty typical for any scifi show on cable on a weeknight Sunday-Thursday. All they need to do is advertise in the right places and maybe a blitz but push a streaming-only delivery that is released a week or 2 early. That will surely have people streaming the show.
Imagine that 3 days after it would air on Spike TV that it also becomes available for rental on iTunes and Amazon.com .
This would really show them who is willing to stream and who will watch it on a network that is mostly undesireable rather than license it to SyFy Channel. I think they could do a subscription-based channel and Trek fans would pay for it to be included on Hulu Plus or a paid YouTube Viacom channel.
Let's throw out a theoretical time period of September 2016 for a new Trek TV series to debut. This would allow them to use the sets from the NuTrek films to repurpose. If they went into production in Autumn of 2015 and made a 90 minute pilot and it debuted at cinemas for a paid ticket only in May of 2016. Then the trek series is released in September of 2016.
Maybe in season 2 they could have it only on Hulu Plus paid subscription service for 13 episodes. The season would be available weekly for 15 episodes in a row starting September 15 and then the season is over but it stays in production to shoot another 15 episodes. The next batch of episodes are not available until February. It is called the 2nd season.
If you have a season-long story arc episodic type show for 15 episodes it finishes them in a tidy manner.
I can see them even putting the season finale at the cinema for a one-night only event and it be a 60-75 minute episode about a week before it becomes available for streaming, and 3 weeks before it is available on the cable TV channel. Maybe fans would get a coupon if they bought a ticket for season finale at the cinema to use toward on buying the series on Blu-ray.

There is no need to reach 100 episodes for syndication. 15 episodes will sell on Blu-ray and season download. The whole first season would not be available on netflix until the end of the 2nd season to allow for paid download and Blu-ray markets.



What is say season 1 had a

[JirinPanthosa]

The only way I have an issue with this is if there's no pay for download option.

I've been buying a lot of seasons of things on iTunes and the only disadvantage that has compared to physical media is being able to see a big image of it on my TV screen.

But, if it's pay per episode, AND it's streaming only, AND there's no download option, I would never go for that. I will not pay for content that the distributor can take away from me permanently at will.

[Temis the Vorta]

If Star Trek is an original Netflix series, why would Netflix ever take it away from subscribers? That happens when they lose streaming rights to stuff they buy from others, in which case, you could probably buy it on DVD or iTunes.

The idea that "you can only get X by subscribing to Netflix" is what locks in subscribers and gives Netflix a motive to do original series in the first place. Taking X away undermines that strategy, and since X costs them a trivial amount to keep available, why remove it?

Here's a tidy analysis of why movies and TV have diverged so hugely, I might as well post it here, since the upshot is to argue that streaming TV is following the premium cable TV model of development.

Hollywood is technically in the story-telling business. But it's really in the franchise-building business. The top 40 movies of all time are practically all sequels, adaptations, and reboots. Most of them have fight scenes and explosions. In a global industry where the top-grossing films make about two-thirds of their revenue outside of the U.S., and marketing budgets stretch into the tens of millions, the surest way to build profit for a studio is to make or buy a franchise. Then you sell sequels and merchandise and TV rights and never ever stop until you can go home after watching Fast and the Furious 6 at the multiplex to lay on your Fast and the Furious bed sheets, and play with your 2 Fast 2 Furious action figures while watching Five Fast on TNT ... in Beijing.

As Hollywood has gone global and mass-mass-market, different incentives for select television networks have helped to fill the void in quality entertainment. Here is Epstein explaining the rise of HBO as an original programming powerhouse:

...

Networks love the cable bundle for the same reason that viewers hate it: It's a relentless (i.e. dependable) transfer of money from households to networks, regardless of what television or how much television we watch. "Basic-cable channels have to broadcast shows that are so good that audiences will go nuts when denied them," Adam Davidson wrote in the New York Times. "Pay-TV channels, which kick-started this economic model, are compelled to make shows that are even better." Thus, television has seen a race to the top while Hollywood has experienced an ostensible race to the middle-bottom.

Star Trek is in a unique situation, in that it can span both movies and TV, by being flexible enough to adapt to both ecosystems. However, the style and substance will be very different. Some people are frustrated with Abrams' movies for being cartoonish and shallow, but that's just him adapting to the demands of the medium. On TV, we'd see something very different.

[JirinPanthosa]

Temis the Vorta wrote:

---

If Star Trek is an original Netflix series, why would Netflix ever take it away from subscribers? That happens when they lose streaming rights to stuff they buy from others, in which case, you could probably buy it on DVD or iTunes.

Same reason Disney 'Vaults' their IPs periodically and lets them out for special releases.

Let distributors completely control access to their brand, they will shut off access periodically so they can charge more when they finally allow it.